Hampshire MP's '£1.5m house sale profit'

A HAMPSHIRE MP made a profit of nearly £1.5 million on a property at the centre of an investigation into her use of taxpayer-funded expenses, it has been reported.

The Commons Standards Committee is considering Culture Secretary Maria Miller's claims under the second home allowance in relation to the property in Wimbledon, south-west London.

The Daily Telegraph reported that the house, which Mrs Miller and her husband bought for £234,000 in 1995, was sold on Valentine's Day this year for £1.47 million.

A source close to the Culture Secretary said: ''It is not surprising that London houses go up in value well over a decade after they are first bought . It is also not unusual for people to move house.''

Mrs Miller, MP for Basingstoke, claimed second home allowances of £90,718 - almost the maximum permitted - between 2005 and 2009 towards mortgage payments, bills and other costs relating to the house.

The cross-party Standards Committee has yet to produce its long-awaited report into Mrs Miller's claims.

A statement on the committee's website said no further announcement on the matter was expected before Wednesday,April 2 ''at the earliest''.

The probe into Mrs Miller's expenses was launched in December 2012 by then parliamentary standards commissioner John Lyon, following a complaint from Labour MP John Mann.

The source said: ''Maria has co-operated fully with the inquiry, asked for by the Labour Party, which has now been going on for a year and a half amidst constant unfounded speculation. We hope it will conclude soon.''

Comments (14)

Is about time this profiteering on the backs of the tax payers was stopped.If the tax payer funds part, or all of the home, then the similar % profit from the proceeds of a sale should be paid back to the tax payer.

Is about time this profiteering on the backs of the tax payers was stopped.If the tax payer funds part, or all of the home, then the similar % profit from the proceeds of a sale should be paid back to the tax payer.hulla baloo

Beermatman wrote:
In my next life I'm coming back as a politician....! I'll work for free, for I'll be more than happy with the &quot;fiddles"
In fact the "fiddles" would support 4/5 families.
Beermatman

Be careful what you wish for. You might come back as Bliar and have to be married to Cherie.....

[quote][p][bold]Beermatman[/bold] wrote:
In my next life I'm coming back as a politician....! I'll work for free, for I'll be more than happy with the "fiddles"
In fact the "fiddles" would support 4/5 families.
Beermatman[/p][/quote]Be careful what you wish for. You might come back as Bliar and have to be married to Cherie.....Dai Rear

No surprise , THEY ALL feather their own nests and bank accounts WHILE we continue to struggle . They can all TALK THE TALK , but its do as I say , not as I do . BLOODY CON ARTISTS each & every 1 , raping and pillaging OUR COUNTRY.

No surprise , THEY ALL feather their own nests and bank accounts WHILE we continue to struggle . They can all TALK THE TALK , but its do as I say , not as I do . BLOODY CON ARTISTS each & every 1 , raping and pillaging OUR COUNTRY.SPIKEISLANDTRADER

How can you make £1.5 million on something that only sold for £1.47 million?
Minus £234k (original price) = £1.23 million ?
I think this story is as confusing as this lady's expense returns!

How can you make £1.5 million on something that only sold for £1.47 million?
Minus £234k (original price) = £1.23 million ?
I think this story is as confusing as this lady's expense returns!100%HANTSBOY

Some worry about a spare bedroom - other poorly paid folk have to claim housing benefits to make ends meet - we have in parliament second home claims for housing benefits, some have more properties and make a profit renting out one, claiming expenses for another and - yes they end up with the property and the profits. Now if somebody else fails to inform the authorities the big stick is used, they 'make mistakes', usually made by folk who we are led to believe are in office because they are 'good administrators'. The Guards published standing orders, which if you were accused of 'failing to comply with a published order he was conversant with or it is reasonable to expect him to be conversant with and comply with a published order'. Published orders - are there no rules for the commons? What defence is there for ignorance of the rules? How does anyone perform their duties if they are ignorant of the rules - or do we have selective knowledge of the rules. Why if the rules do exist can we never find a tribunal wishing to enforce the rules to the letter. They ask why they are not held in high esteem.

Some worry about a spare bedroom - other poorly paid folk have to claim housing benefits to make ends meet - we have in parliament second home claims for housing benefits, some have more properties and make a profit renting out one, claiming expenses for another and - yes they end up with the property and the profits. Now if somebody else fails to inform the authorities the big stick is used, they 'make mistakes', usually made by folk who we are led to believe are in office because they are 'good administrators'. The Guards published standing orders, which if you were accused of 'failing to comply with a published order he was conversant with or it is reasonable to expect him to be conversant with and comply with a published order'. Published orders - are there no rules for the commons? What defence is there for ignorance of the rules? How does anyone perform their duties if they are ignorant of the rules - or do we have selective knowledge of the rules. Why if the rules do exist can we never find a tribunal wishing to enforce the rules to the letter. They ask why they are not held in high esteem.skeptik

"They ask why they are not held in high esteem" No, I don't think they do. Their hides are not quite that thick. But how wrong the Chartists were when they marched in favour of salaries for MP's. Serving your country in Parliament should be an obligation after a successful career. The only one who fits that bill that I can think of offhand is -and I very much regret to have to admit this-Cable.

"They ask why they are not held in high esteem" No, I don't think they do. Their hides are not quite that thick. But how wrong the Chartists were when they marched in favour of salaries for MP's. Serving your country in Parliament should be an obligation after a successful career. The only one who fits that bill that I can think of offhand is -and I very much regret to have to admit this-Cable.Dai Rear

We should be represented by many groups and ages. We are stuck with labour and conservative and the who am I friends with today party. Parties formed in different times with a system of government from different times. We are hugely overrepresented from an age when it took ten hours by coach from Southampton to London. Parliament has evolved for it's own benefit and as each decade goes by it become less democratic we have prime ministers saying 'I am going to do this' really do they not have to carry the house - of course not - some 400 of them are 'rubber stamper' seat savers - men and women of independent mind? Oh yes when they ask for votes, once on the benches with the other reserves they soon catch on - one game played by a blue team and a red team - have a little dig but heaven forbid do not rock the boat or the onlookers start getting nosy. The big lie 'if you do not pay the right wages and more perks than you can list' -you do not get the 'right people'. Like to see the evidence for that most perfect piece of nonsense.

We should be represented by many groups and ages. We are stuck with labour and conservative and the who am I friends with today party. Parties formed in different times with a system of government from different times. We are hugely overrepresented from an age when it took ten hours by coach from Southampton to London. Parliament has evolved for it's own benefit and as each decade goes by it become less democratic we have prime ministers saying 'I am going to do this' really do they not have to carry the house - of course not - some 400 of them are 'rubber stamper' seat savers - men and women of independent mind? Oh yes when they ask for votes, once on the benches with the other reserves they soon catch on - one game played by a blue team and a red team - have a little dig but heaven forbid do not rock the boat or the onlookers start getting nosy. The big lie 'if you do not pay the right wages and more perks than you can list' -you do not get the 'right people'. Like to see the evidence for that most perfect piece of nonsense.skeptik

skeptik wrote:
We should be represented by many groups and ages. We are stuck with labour and conservative and the who am I friends with today party. Parties formed in different times with a system of government from different times. We are hugely overrepresented from an age when it took ten hours by coach from Southampton to London. Parliament has evolved for it's own benefit and as each decade goes by it become less democratic we have prime ministers saying 'I am going to do this' really do they not have to carry the house - of course not - some 400 of them are 'rubber stamper' seat savers - men and women of independent mind? Oh yes when they ask for votes, once on the benches with the other reserves they soon catch on - one game played by a blue team and a red team - have a little dig but heaven forbid do not rock the boat or the onlookers start getting nosy. The big lie 'if you do not pay the right wages and more perks than you can list' -you do not get the 'right people'. Like to see the evidence for that most perfect piece of nonsense.

Most constituencies are Rotten Boroughs. A chimp gets elected if he has the right rosette. But a multiplicity of parties is not a perfect recipe,, viz Italy-though of course that's barely a country inasmuch as part will be Austria again quite soon.
"We should be represented by many groups and ages. "But surely NOT by notorious criminals like Adams and McGuiness.

[quote][p][bold]skeptik[/bold] wrote:
We should be represented by many groups and ages. We are stuck with labour and conservative and the who am I friends with today party. Parties formed in different times with a system of government from different times. We are hugely overrepresented from an age when it took ten hours by coach from Southampton to London. Parliament has evolved for it's own benefit and as each decade goes by it become less democratic we have prime ministers saying 'I am going to do this' really do they not have to carry the house - of course not - some 400 of them are 'rubber stamper' seat savers - men and women of independent mind? Oh yes when they ask for votes, once on the benches with the other reserves they soon catch on - one game played by a blue team and a red team - have a little dig but heaven forbid do not rock the boat or the onlookers start getting nosy. The big lie 'if you do not pay the right wages and more perks than you can list' -you do not get the 'right people'. Like to see the evidence for that most perfect piece of nonsense.[/p][/quote]Most constituencies are Rotten Boroughs. A chimp gets elected if he has the right rosette. But a multiplicity of parties is not a perfect recipe,, viz Italy-though of course that's barely a country inasmuch as part will be Austria again quite soon.
"We should be represented by many groups and ages. "But surely NOT by notorious criminals like Adams and McGuiness.Dai Rear

Not what you and I want, it is what people want, some we like and some we do not - The two you name I have met on more than one occasion once as part of an arrest team - a long time before they took up the weapon of politics. Like you not keen, but we cannot talk of democracy then exclude those that represent many people like it or no. Parliament has had more than it's fair share of notorious criminals.

Not what you and I want, it is what people want, some we like and some we do not - The two you name I have met on more than one occasion once as part of an arrest team - a long time before they took up the weapon of politics. Like you not keen, but we cannot talk of democracy then exclude those that represent many people like it or no. Parliament has had more than it's fair share of notorious criminals.skeptik

If my memory serves a sentence in excess of 30 months DOES exclude you from the House and the Council Chamber. Adams of course received 8 years and McGuiness admitted offences which would have taken him way over that figure (he got a derisory 6 months in the Banana...erhh..Irish Republic) but of course it suited Bliar to overlook that. As the song says : Our Leaders are the finest men and we elect them again and again; what did you learn in school today dear little boy of mine" So, expect the worst of them and you'll not be disappointed.

If my memory serves a sentence in excess of 30 months DOES exclude you from the House and the Council Chamber. Adams of course received 8 years and McGuiness admitted offences which would have taken him way over that figure (he got a derisory 6 months in the Banana...erhh..Irish Republic) but of course it suited Bliar to overlook that. As the song says : Our Leaders are the finest men and we elect them again and again; what did you learn in school today dear little boy of mine" So, expect the worst of them and you'll not be disappointed.Dai Rear